So he does get some stuff right, which was my point, no more, no less.
For Sophrone it is not a source criticism stuff but a careful reading. He took at face value the rest (Sebeos, Jubilees, John) and use it without Because those texts must be criticized
as such.
And not in relation with a theory. Like
Penn did with John.
You read through it but you didn't notice it. Sounds ironic given all your criticism about me not reading texts properly.
Then, you do not want to give the page?
It is funny because I am stating that each has a piece of the puzzle (meaning they don't have ALL the pieces )
When I say Tom, Jerry and Daffy Duck and the rest,
each has a piece of the puzzle, they have all the pieces.
Well, Nevo is not the only one but you should have noticed that Nevo says Islam derives from that Abrahamism while I don't. I am just saying sources tell us this faith was there (and explain the Dome of Abraham of the Khuzistan Chronicle, the sacred place of the arabs of Anastasius, the Kaba of Jacob of Edessa,etc,etc) but I never said Islam derived from that
1/You have said something? Apart
supporting Nevo Abrahamism and the
NEW Jews, since almost 1 week you have said what exactly?
2/the Kaba of Jacob of Edessa is Abrahamism? the Dome of Abraham is Abrahamism? the sacred place of the arabs of Anastasius is Abrahamism?
Do you have grounds about that?
Marc :
yes I have the Dome of Abraham of the Khuzistan Chronicle, the sacred place of the arabs of Anastasius, the Kaba of Jacob of Edessa.Lol...
I will ask again : what does Rachel Stroumsa bring ? I am expecting a summary of her thesis and the benefit she brings and to which exact topic, not some cryptic reply.
You cannot expect working at your place.
I will repeat once and will not come back on it. This text, that discuss an event that did or didn't happen, in 640 or later, is an apologetic text for the Christian faith. There is no anti-semitic bias because it does not say anything negative against Jews.
Idem. Pointing the Jews as responsible of the faith of the Arabs rulers is saying something negative about Jews to a Christian audience in Late Antiquity, whatever you call it.
You're an amateur.
However, it does tell us that those Arabs derive their faith from the Jews but this happens in an answer to explain/defend Christianity and its multiple sects, not as a pass at Jews.
"Answer to explain/defend Christianity " which is not menaced as such at that time 710 and later. But who has lost the political power to Arabs guided by Jews. Sebeos do the same : Christianity has lost the political power to Arabs indoctrinated by Jews who have ordered the conquest and participated!
These two texts are not what they pretend to be, as the authors lies about what they really are; they are propaganda against the Jews, nothing else, putting them responsible of the mess where Christianity is, as it has lost the political power . End of story.
To see this as anti-semitism can only come, and I am sorry to say this, from someone paranoiac about it or someone whose ideology makes him create anything that cross his mind to discard the text.
Lol.
You haven't read him and know nothing about some issues numismatics create in the muslim narrative as you demonstrated here on this forum twice.
I do not need him to know the issues in the Muslim narratives.
You mixed Gnosis and Gnoticism when we discussed about him.
I mixed nothing, I've corrected you as what you read about Gnose (which is the real word) was surely in a comic, and not in scholarly articles.
Penn doesn't address Sebeos in his book "When Christians first met Muslims" so either you are referring to another work of Penn, or you have no clue.
We have never talk about "When Christians first met Muslims", it was not the topic here. Again, you modify, change, things surely you do not even realize it, it is worst then than I thought...
He addresses John. And the arguments it gives about John to contest the 640 date
applies to Sebeos to contest the same. I gave the arguments it gives about John in this very forum : go read them.
We all have our own bias, you included.
I have sources : muhajirun in 643, build in 637, C14.
And for instant, I saw no argued responses (as usual)...
Topic: Qur'anic studies today